Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-07-15
INTER STATE COMMERCE.
Letters OF Senator James F. wilson of Iowa
10 the Fairfield Ledger,
LETTER NO. VIII.
FAIRFIELD, IowA. June u. ISL

: AXE iE-i-Di IOWA. June y, 1887.
Editors Ledger; In g former letter
directed attention to the provisions of the
interstate commerce law relative to Grim
inal prosecutions against corporations
and persons who may violate its terms.
l can but believe that 100 little attention
is given to that festure of the law. re
cent press telegram from Washington
states that:
"The board o. railroad and warehouse
commissioners Of Minnesota transmitted
70 the Interstate commerce commission
8 petition Of the boards Of trade OF the
cities OF Pennington, NOrthhe!d, Fari-
6ault snd Owattone, accompanying s com
plant against the Chicago, Milwaukee
aRd5St. Paul Railway Company. 1t is al
legged by the petition and complaint that
the charges made by the railroad company
on traffic are unjust and unreasonable;
inst ii charges and receives from persons
living at Pennington ana other towns
mentioned greater compensation for the
tranSD ration of mill stufs to points on
rosd5 in Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois
than il receives from people in St. Pau!,
Minneapolis, Eau Cisire, Nenominee end
ChippeWa Falls for Ike service, which re-
ar disadvantage of the hTst named towns.
As o result Of these unjust, unequal and
unreasonable charges il is stated that the
mills a. Faubeult, Pennington and other
towns are unable TO compete successfully
with the St Paul and Minneapolis millers,
AID that many mills hsd 10 be closed and
large numbers OF men thrown out of en-
pI0yment."
This ~ T., -1- ...---. rl,At -.y
Of the third section of the interstate
commerce law which declares:
'That il shall be UulswfuI for any com
mon carrier SUbjsc- TO the provisions Of
this act to make or give any undue or I'M
reasonable preference or advantage to
any particular person, company, firm,
corporation, or lCCsIity, OF shy particular
description OF traffic, 20 any undue or m
reasonable prejudice or disadvantage in
in any respect whatsoever"
Why stop with presenting this case to
the Interstate commerce commission?
Why not put the machinery of the grand
Jury il operation? Section 10 Of the ect
makes ample provision for q penal rem
ed7. copied it in one OF nv former let
ters, but give il here again by way Of
emphasizing the suggestion / make. It
reads as follows. VIZ:
"S3C, 10. That aEy common carrier
subject to tie provisions Of this act, or,
whenever such common carrier is q cor
p0r9ti0n, any director or Chicer thereof,
or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent or
person getting for or employed by such
corporation, who, alone or with ary other
corporation, company, person, or Psrty,
shall WiilulIy do or cause 10 ne done, or
. o..
any act, matter, OF thing il this &c. pro
liHi.li or declared 10 be unlawful. or
who shall aid or Gbgt therein, or snail
WiIiu.,y omit or fai TO 10 any act, matter,
Cg thing il this &C. required 10 be done,
or shall cause or willingly suffer any act,
matter, C- thing so directed or required
by this act to be done not to he 80 done,
or snail aid or abe1 any such omission or
failure, or shall be guilty of aEy iDirsction
OF this act or shall aid or abet therein,
she'll be deemed guilty Of mtsdemeanCr,
and shall, upon conviction thereof in euy
District court of the United States within
the Jurisdiction of which such offeuse
was committed, be subject to { fine Of
not 10 exceed tive thousand dollars for
each Offerse."
few prosecutions under this section
N
violations of the law a. the one above
described than multitude of petitions to
the commission. It is au well enough to
resort to the latter; for in this way may
come results that may lay sure fOUnda-
tons for civil actions. Butthe two meth
DDS should be pursued.
We have an Iowa case that would seem
TO invite q movement under section 10.
D
/ between ChiCsTO and Minneapolis, and
Chicago and Council Bluffs, have estab-
!ished q rate On grain and -four between
thel former places at = cents per 100
pounds, while they demand 9 rate OF .
cents per 100 pounds between Council
Bluffs and Chicago. Distance and cost
of operation in the two cases practically
the same. But the difference in rates
puts Council Bluffs and eli interior Iowa
points at 8 fearful disadvantage. The
terms Of the Interstate commerce law
give no countensnCG 10 such unCCnsciOn-
able Determinations; on the contrary
such practices are expressly prohibited.
The penal provisions of the law as above
given attach to them. Why should not
Council Bluffs put the case before the
United States grand jury for the southern
Is4StL4CL VI 4ONd' IlttIe IeoOluVC aCLLOu
in tAis regard will soon work q retOrm&-
ton in railroad practices. The law is
plain il its provisions. The disCrimina-
ton in this case is sn unlawful act. Why
not give 10 those who committed it an
experience under its penal section? A Law
csDnot enforce itself. Some person or
interest must put it into motion. Why
not go to the grand jury as well as to the
national commission? Let those who are
suffering from the Determinations III
volved in the two cases presented avail
themselves OF the full remedies OF 5he
law, and the country VIII begin to see the
end of this heretofore unequal contest
coming. JAMES = WILSON.